Bug 815001

Summary: Review Request: opennebula - Cloud computing tool to manage a distributed virtual data center to build private, public and hybrid IaaS clouds
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Shawn Starr <shawn.starr>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: dwalsh, james.hogarth, javier.ramirez, jmelis, karlthered, leamas.alec, mattdm, mgrepl, misc, mrunge, nobody, package-review, shawn.starr, valtri
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard: NotReady
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-12-03 23:13:02 EST Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    

Description Shawn Starr 2012-04-21 22:45:48 EDT
Spec URL:

SRPM URL:opennebula/opennebula-3.2.1-1.src.rpm

Description: Cloud computing tool to manage a distributed virtual data center to build private, public and hybrid IaaS clouds


This is going to require a bit of reviews due to the structure of how OpenNebula installs and its ssh key generation requirement. I'd appreciate any feedback/suggestions on any areas that can be cleaned up/done better
Comment 1 Susi Lehtola 2012-04-23 05:49:16 EDT
There's no SRPM url.
Comment 2 Matthias Runge 2012-04-23 05:55:54 EDT
Assuming, he meant
SRPM: http://fedorapeople.org/~spstarr/packages/opennebula-3.2.1-1.src.rpm

Shawn: The fedora-review-flag is set by the reviewer, not the reporter.
Comment 3 Shawn Starr 2012-04-23 12:03:35 EDT
Well, I set the flag to initiate someone to do the reviewing. It's '?'
Comment 4 Alec Leamas 2012-05-07 12:28:28 EDT
NO, don't do that. The reviewer sets the flag. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
Comment 5 Michael Scherer 2012-05-20 18:17:01 EDT
A few comment 

- I think the spec layout is rather difficult. While I know everybody has specific preference, I think it would be better to group various %post/%pre script together ( as I missed the one creating oneadmin )

- patches should be commented 

- is it required to have mysql server on the same computer ? If not, I think the requires could be relaxed. 

- %setup -q -n opennebula-3.2.1
You should reuse %version, so this is easier to upgrade later

- why is the whole .ssh populated in %post, would it better to do it like any other file, with rpm ? ( at least the .ssh/config ), and using %ghost so rpm can manage and check the permission of all file ?

- apg is used in a %post script, but the requires is missing ( Requires(post): )

- why do the documentation requires the main packages ?

- why do sunstone requires the main package ? According to http://opennebula.org/documentation:archives:rel2.2:sunstone , they can be separated, and I would surely see good reason to deploy them on 2 differents server, for security reason.

- From a quick check in open nebula doc, it is not clear why openssh server should be installed on the main hypervisor, could you explain why it is required ?

- a oneadmin user is needed on the frontend, but also on the host. So I would suggest to create a package to be used on host that would create the user.
Comment 6 Shawn Starr 2012-05-20 18:38:45 EDT
This is going to be changing I will be discussing with upstream tomorrow for OpenNebula 3.6 is coming. 

Thanks for your initial reviews and discussing them with upstream.
Comment 7 Shawn Starr 2012-05-22 12:44:45 EDT
Spoke to upstream, we will remove the SSH %post section completely and put info in documentation for user.

I will clean up .spec accordingly for the other 

For OpenSSH we need it on hypervisors in order for the oneadmin user to execute commands on the hypervisor and the frontend itself.

We will be switching to OpenNebula 3.6 and backporting to Fedora 17 after.

Sunstone is a separate package in this .spec file, oZones support will be re-enabled / changed. They do however require opennebula to be installed for ruby/lib dependencies.

I will fix the other issues also.
Comment 8 Shawn Starr 2012-08-24 14:43:56 EDT
This is on hold, targeting Fedora 19 now. Upstream is aware, working with them to sort out issues mentioned in bug.
Comment 9 Matthias Runge 2012-12-14 04:48:06 EST
Shawn, any progress here? Are you going to update the spec according to the comments?
Comment 10 Shawn Starr 2012-12-14 04:54:18 EST
Some of the changes need to be discussed further with upstream. I'm dealing with personal issues right now, ie, looking for work. I've had no time to look at this unfortunately.
Comment 11 Fedora End Of Life 2013-07-04 01:26:00 EDT
This message is a reminder that Fedora 17 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 17. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '17'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 17's end of life.

Bug Reporter:  Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 17 is end of life. If you 
would still like  to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it 
against a later version  of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 
'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 17's end of life.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.
Comment 12 Shawn Starr 2013-08-09 13:12:24 EDT
This is unblocked

Upstream is testing out a SELinux solution which should resolve our final issue.

[12:33] <@jmelis> I got a tip by nehaljwani
[12:33] <@jmelis> telling me that we need to do this:
[12:34] <@jmelis> semanage fcontext -a -t ssh_home_t  "/var/lib/one/.ssh(/.*)?" ;  restorecon -R /var/lib/one/.ssh

I will be helping them test on rawhide when they are ready. Then re-review spec file changes as there's been several releases of OpenNebula since.

Comment 13 Shawn Starr 2013-09-04 09:32:17 EDT
We have the final rubygem (rubygem-parse-cron) in Fedora now for Fedora 19 (pending) and Fedora 20/rawhide.

More on this once upstream gets back to me.
Comment 14 Shawn Starr 2013-10-16 23:23:43 EDT
Upstream is working on SELinux issue which is holding this process up right now.
Comment 15 Shawn Starr 2013-11-07 09:49:12 EST
Just so everyone is aware and in the loop: 

We're working off of this .spec file: https://nazar.karan.org/blob/misc!opennebula/544a11f6ff0d83f6e4eec57479c6b15d72ccc5bb/SPECS!opennebula.spec

I have several questions since I'll be taking this and making it Fedora ready. There's some things in the .spec we can't be doing but we can sort these issues out.
Comment 16 Matthias Runge 2014-03-12 05:34:23 EDT
Any status update here?
Comment 17 František Dvořák 2014-09-01 09:52:08 EDT
How about the ruby part?

1) It looks like there are bundled ruby libraries: for example opennebula gem, http://rubygems.org/gems/opennebula. It's from the same project, but other packages may also depend on opennebula rubygem.

2) According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby packaging for non-Gem use is no longer needed.

In our project we would need to package rubygem-opennebula. It looks like there is not a conflict with this packaging (files are at different locations), but maybe it needs to be cleaned up here or have some coordination? It may be easier to have separated package rubygem-opennebula, but I'm not sure about compatibility of the whole opennebula with different versions of opennebula gem.
Comment 18 James Hogarth 2015-12-03 23:13:02 EST
As per Fedora policy it has been over a year with no response from the requester to a needs info flag.

Closing as a dead review.